Fallacy: Strawman

Person A (Frank) has position X. (Jews were overrepresented in the early Bolshevik movement)
Person B (htperr6565) presents position Y (Franks claim about Judeo Bolshevism is evidence of a International Zionist agenda) (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B (htperr6565) attacks position Y. (Franks claim about Judeo Bolshevism is evidence of an International Zionist agenda)
Therefore X (Jews were overrepresented in the early Bolshevik movement)is false/incorrect/flawed.

I never mentioned anything about a worldwide Zionist conspiracy or anything of the sort!

I am rather disappointed that he posted what he did and took off; I wanted to see a good debate on the issue.

And you provide a link to a holocaust historical revisionist site to illustrate this claim? This is David Irvings website you linked too! If you use him as a source to substantiate your claims this means that you view him as credible! Here is what I found on that site!

Challenge to the Hoess Confessions
Letters to David Irving's Website

THE ABOVE IS FROM YOUR SOURCE!

I really don't understand the need for this revisionism.

We KNOW it happened. The figure generally mentioned is six million - it may be more, it may be a little less. It doesn't really matter - because what happened is in fact more than the numbers.

Apart from years of victimisation, and transport to concentration camps where many starved, the ghettoes were 'cleared' of people, in any way that was considered the most effective at the time - including mass murder and in some cases people digging their own graves before whole families were shot.

There were also the most gross and bizarre tortures - ostensibly under the banner of science, but in fact designed to humiliate and dehumanize victims.

I couldn't give a fuck if it was 600 or 6 million people - this was WRONG. we know it happened - and quibbling over numbers is beyond me. It was WRONG to do that to people.

We need to understand that no matter how civilised we think we are, no mater how 'reasonable' and 'rational, ' people are capable of the grossest cruelty and inhumanity, and the holocaust serves as a reminder to that.

I don't really care who the victims were either - Jewish, Christian, Gay, Gypsy, Muslim, Black, white, Chinese ... its all the same to me .....

But denying that it happened is the preserve of wankers ...
it happened, and we should remember it every time we start saying THOSE people aren't like us.

Aye to that.

__________________
668.....the neighbour of the beast.

Yanqui, go home.

It is only when you feel history after you think it, that it becomes something of the past.

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance -- it is the illusion of knowledge"

__________________
If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.
Albert Einstein

Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world
Schopenhauer

Frank did you read some of the other links on that site?

try this one...

Real History and the Camp at Auschwitz

perhaps the website contains some of the debate you were looking for. sorry for showing you something you were looking for. perhaps im not afraid to link arguments i dont beleive are valid.

Auschwitz was just one camp. ever heard of treblinka? listen to a Wehrmacht soldiers account of it.
Shofar FTP Archives: camps/aktion.reinhard/treblinka/siedice.002

Just because i link to a site does not mean i validate everything on it.

If that were the case, i would have been right about you beleiving there was an international Zionist agenda (because you once had a link that said "look at my anti-Commie, anti International Zionist website") excuse me for jumping to conclusions

Perfectly expressed.

I was just looking in on this thread 'cause I was suprised it was still around. But THAT was a post I feel obligated to applaud. Thank you, daisym.

More perpetrator evidence of systematic plan to kill Jews.

Perpetrators

Of course! I am reading them all!

I am just suprised that you consider a historical revisionist who challenged quite a few of accepted positions on the holocaust a credible source when you hold the opposing view!

Do you consider David Irving to be a credible source?

That is something you seem to be good at...

Can't wait for the 'comeback'. That'll be fun

__________________
"Say not, 'When I have free time I shall study'; for you may perhaps never have any free time"
Hillel the Elder

Excellent post daisym!

You may not 'understand' it, but I'm sure you know where it comes from and what need drives it. Pretty damn obvious.

Oh yes Michael - I know EXACTLY where it comes from ...

I just wanted to put it in context.

That it happened is enough - and if we don't understand that - where are we?

And that's today's problem.
It really doesn't matter how many were killed, not killed whatsoever.
People know about it, atonement were given plenty, they have the world's compassion.
But now the game turns, 'Holocaust' works like a blank check

Frank, if you knew much about history and historiography, you would know that many historians are "revisionists." That is, historians are always challenging accepted views and re examining evidence and applying new evidence as it is found. calling a holocaust denier a "revisionist" gives him way too much credit. he is just someone who doesnt want to beleive something due to ideological motivations.

there are problems with some holocaust evidence. does that mean it didnt happen? no, because although Hoess' testimony has its limits, and its problems, it does not logically conclude that the holocaust didnt happen. the spectrum of evidence is too broad.

Irving is an intelligent historian. He has done lots of research, much more than me on Nazi germany. However, it is all too obvious that he ignores evidence that doesnt support his views and exaggerates inconclusive evidence that does not prove the holocaust didnt happen. he raises good questions, one that comes to mind being "Where was all the ash from the 3 mil bodies at auschwitz? allied arial photos show none" a great question. however he is not concerned with the anser to that question, which was that according to testimony from both SS and the Jewish prisoner/workers (sonderkomando) the ash was dumped in the Vistula river.

DairyQueen;

That's certainly been true in the past. How else can anybody explain the persisting sympathy for Zionism in the face of its illegalities and atrocities ?

I do feel though that the communications revolution will create more of a level playing field for the Palestinians. The situation now has the attentions of all IT nations and the recorded histories give the lie to sixty years of Zionist-owned media propaganda which enjoyed no opposition.

For example, only an ardent pro-Zionist would look at 'the demands' being made of Hamas and consider them fair or reasonable. The rest of us are viewing them with incredulity.
What needs to be done is to ensure that the Palestinians are aware of just how much support they have world-wide. That would work wonders for their resilience.

__________________
668.....the neighbour of the beast.

Yanqui, go home.

there is a problem with connecting the sympathy for Zionism exclusively to the Holocaust. for several reasons:

1. Sympathy for Zionism existed in Western nations prior to the Holocaust. Namely in Britain, which had a Jewish lobby, but also had its own reasons for preferring Zionism. The Balfour Declaration in 1917 is good thing to consider here.

2. The "Holocaust" was not a well known, or even defined, event in 1948 following the Declaration of Independence by the Jews. Many were aware of atrocities committed by the Nazis, but the Jewish centrality of the event had not been fully asserted. that would come later.